CC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

proposal was removed from the “curb-to-curb” focus; however, she commented that if the percentages were dedicated to the particular items identified, it would keep the City accountable. Mr. Corey remarked that the original ordinance passed by the council in 2000 was the same ordinance considered in 2002; however, the methodology was reviewed based on a more sophisticated traffic model than was available in 2000. In fact, he noted that it revealed a different split between the commercial and residential assessments than was estimated in 2000 which resulted in a decrease in fees for the commercial side. Mr. Corey pointed out that the policy issue before the council was adoption of the ordinance and the methodology would be developed subsequent to that action and could change annually based upon traffic generation conditions. Ms. Ortiz asked if there was a mechanism which can be implemented for streets that have never been paved. In other words, if there was a non-collector street that was solely for neighborhood traffic and has never been improved, would there be an opportunity to have a separate matrix for those streets. Mr. Corey responded that the proposal under consideration referred solely to the “maintainable” transportation system in place and improvements to streets not brought up to standard, the TSMF, under current policy, could not fund. He said that design standards throughout neighborhoods were a sidebar to this discussion. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many of her constituents would be paying for services that they would not receive. She stressed that the process must be equitable to her constituents and should include a mechanism to address their issues. Mr. Corey responded that other municipalities which have street maintenance assessments in place have used the idea of a portion of that money to offset the cost of upgrading streets to an acceptable standard. Ms. Ortiz said she was in general support of the motion but stressed it not be complex in nature. Ms. Taylor said that Public Works did an excellent job of convincing residents there was a problem with the operations, maintenance, and preservation of the city’s transportation service system. She noted that a general obligation bond had not been heretofore considered. Ms. Taylor opined that a vehicle registration fee would be more equitable. She pointed out that most of the residents in Lane County live in an urban area and opined that such a fee would be successful. Ms. Taylor noted that if the statewide laws could be changed, the City could move a fee forward which would be equitable to all wards. Mr. Kelly conceded that the TSMF was a policy issue; however, he said it was also a policy question as to who would pay the TSMF. He said that his support was contingent on having a clear and fair methodology. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Taylor in opposition. C. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss joined the council for the item. She stated that the plan being considered contained information to guide implementational projects related to Parks, Recreation and Open Space. She said the information includes project timing, cost estimates, maintenance costs, growth allocation percentages, as well as associated maps identifying location of projects. Ms. Weiss shared that the relationship between the plan and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) was that the PROS Plan was a policy document whereas the project and priority plan before the council was an action document and provides for specific projects. She said that if adopted, the plan would be inserted into the PROS as an appendix. Ms. Weiss explained that the projects were in direct response to a comprehensive public outreach process. She then outlined the following components included in the Agenda Item Summary: MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session